Who Are They Really Working For?

One Year on, the Unacceptable Professionally Unaccountable Face Of Registered Charities

2007-02-21T03:25:00.000-08:00

Almost 12 months after legitimate and valid complaints were first made about domains purchased, registered and legally owned by Commission for Patient and Public Involvment in Health Commissioner and Mental Health Foundation Senior Policy Advisor David Keay being involved in targetting porn and drug content at people with or an interest in Mental Health issues these domains , which at one point he craftilly transferred away from himself, suddenly ceased this targetting but not before the Mental Health Foundation, Together , Comic Relief , the Charity Commission and the Independent Complaints Reviewer proved how professionally unaccountable and unwilling they were to intervene to protect the intended beneficiaries of the charity Mr Keay worked for .

This shortsighted all round lack of professional accountability also compromised the embryonic national service user network whose service user committee members simply could not understand why they and the new £750, 000 iniative - £500,000 alone from Comic Relief - had become embroiled in Mr Keay's undeclared online activities targetted at the networks intended audience.

Comic Relief had a chance to intervene. Its Director sat on his hands , arrogantly and dismissively responding to complaints through the e-mail account of his film production company because Comic Relief unfortunately clearly belongs to the over 70% of registered charities - stats from the Independent Complaints Reviewers 2006 Annual Report - which lack a professional, structured and meaningful complaints process and or part of the even higher percentage of registered charities who do not feel they need a complaints process at all.

Comic Relief will never get another penny from me again - and a growing number of people have echoed the same sentiment- unless and until it demonstrates that the intended beneficiaries of money donated to it and ordinary members of the public who donate that money have access to structured professional complaints process if they see Comic Relief is doing something wrong.

Here it was giving half a million pounds to an iniative fronted by a man involved in targetting the very people that money was intended to assist with porn and drug content.

Comic Relief's Director Peter Bennett Jones whole attitude appears to be that members of the public have no right to question how Comic Relief , a major grant awarding body, operates behind its high profile plastic Red nose, assuming it is is immoral to question charities like his when in fact it is ammoral of Comic Relief and Mr Bennett Jones to ask people to dig deeply in their pockets for worthy causes without Comic Relief having any structured complaints mechanism in place to deal with complaints even where there is a track record of abuse and /or failure to audit use of charitable funds for effectiveness.

Mr Bennett Jones is still in a position to put things right.

Dr Andrew McCulloch, the Director of Mental Health Media, on the other hwent even further , he took the trouble of having his charity's Chairman secretly circulate a dossier on me as if I were a) personally responsible for Mr Keay's objective involvment with the targetting of drug and porn content and, b) as a private individual and mental health service user , somehow more professionally accountable for my actions than he, Mr Keay or any or all of the above are.

This was an appallingly cynical and deliberately self-serving abuse and waste of the Mental Health Foundations charitable funds, resources and time and we know it was because the moment public scrutiny began to fall on the targetting I and other MH service users complained about, through this blog, petitions and other MH websites, someone put pressure on Mr Keay to ensure that the targetting he was involved with stopped.

Now that Mr Keay has finally acted in a professionally responsible way, it is possible to move on but bearing in mind the sheer number of organisations and people this issue has compromised in the year it took him and the Mental Health Foundation to act professionally I believe Mr Keay and Dr McCulloch should now seriously consider their positions as their actions - an arrogant refusal to just do the right thing in the first place - have raised serious questions about the way registered charities and the Charity Commission operate .

Dr McCulloch has also repeatedly claimed that this issue is personal and constantly made hollow threats to sue service users for even openly discussing this matter never once thinking about his Senior Policy Advisors personal and professional responsibility for his own actions and the fact that the Mental Health Foundation is also part of the over 70% of registered charity's that doesnt have a structured professional complaints process .

In fact, Dr Andrew McCulloch personally and pointlessly protected his Senior Policy Advisor at the expense of the Mental Health Foundation's and his own reputations. That was personal and the only reason McCulloch got himself and his charity into this mess is because he has ensured that his charity has been managed by personality rather than any reognisable professional standards or procedures when it comes to investigating complaints.

I for one want to see this issue and the lessons that can be learned from it included in the recently announced public consultation on reforming the way the Charity Commission handles and investigates complaints and Jodi Berg the solicitor who holds the appointment of the Independent Complaints Reviewer also needs to consider her position as she cannot possibly claim to be an objective party in this issue .Ms Berg knew that the targetting was wrong and yet she sat back and, at one point even suggested that service users contact the police rather than the Charity Commission or her, as growing public pressure and disdain for Ms Berg's and her teams bias and icy detachment forced the year long targetting to stop.

The main lesson learned? That the Charity Commission and the ICR are a waste of public money if it requires the intended beneficiaries of charitable funds , mental health service users with the help of carers in this case, a year to have a Senior Policy Advisor with a major mental health charity cease and desist from using domains he purchased, registered and owned to stop targetting them with porn.

The targetting should have ceased a year ago and it is both pathetic and scandalous that it took a long and drawn out publicly campaign and petition to force the Mental Health Foundation's Senior Policy Advisor to stop targetting drug and porn content at the people his charity was funded to serve because, and only because, his Director and the registered charity regulatory authorities decided to look the other way or bury their heads in the sand.

Please sign up to the pledge calling for more professional accountability from registered charities wont harm charities , it will better ensure that they stick to their aims and objectives and that any money you donate goes to the causes or people they claim to be serving.

Thanks

Des Curley

Is the Funding Tail Wagging the Dog?

2007-02-15T04:05:00.000-08:00

Charities that get over 70 per cent of their income from the state should lose their charitable status - including tax breaks, and become "statutory agencies", to preserve the integrity and independence of the voluntary sector, think-tank Civitas said this week in a new report, Who Cares?

Author Nick Seddon outlines his case below, and the bosses of three charities with a high percentage of income from statutory sources, Lord Victor Adebowale of Turning Point, Clare Tickell of NCH, the children's charity and Bryan Dutton of Leonard Cheshire answer back.

Nick Seddon, author of Civitas report Who Cares?

"The proposal to reclassify charities is designed to promote debate and dispel some of the confusion surrounding what charities are and what they actually do. It is intended to address two levels of concern, one the inherent risk associated with becoming over-dependent on a single source of funding, the other more broadly the balance of power within the sector. ( i.e. fraud)

The Charity Commission recommends as best practice that organisations diversify their funding sources. Many ignore this, yet all the signs are that a body getting the vast majority of its money from one source is influenced by the values of that funder and reluctant to criticise it. Often, such charities grow to resemble the local and central departments on which they depend for money.

Like the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, which actually subsidised the setting up of Government quango NIMHE in return for rich pickings for becoming the mouthpiece for Government MH policy))

Mission creep can occur, when charities stray from their objects in pursuit of funding. Leonard Cheshire, which receives 88 per cent of its income from statutory sources, tells us on its website that grants and fees do not pay for… the projects that can truly be termed 'charitable'. Isn’t this a tacit admission that nine tenths of the work it does now is not truly charitable?

Eh, yes.....

There is a need to shore up the whole sector. Charities need to be free standing, not subject to the vicissitudes of party politics. But what if the next government decided not to fund the types of activity favoured by the current government? A funding framework might help the likes of Turning Point reorganise their income portfolio before push comes to shove.

From another angle, while no one doubts that the likes of Barnardo’s and NCH do good work, ( proof please!!!) there’s a category difference between a charity with thousands of staff taking millions of pounds from statutory sources and a small community based charity which is largely dependent on volunteers and the generosity of local benefactors. Yet they currently compete on the same playing field, both for service contracts and the goodwill of the public.

The Mental Health Charity Rethink attacked and alienated the public with its Churchill in a Straitjacket jape withoutout a thought for the £12,000 of donations wasted on this laughable campaign which actually reduced donations.

Differentiating between bodies might be one way to help charities choose how they define themselves – and help donors choose what they support."

Turning Point chief executive, Lord Victor Adebowale responds
"The two main concerns of those who question charities’ role in service delivery - that state funding will impair our ability to campaign effectively and that we run the risk of losing our independence from the state - simply fly in the face of reality.

Turning Point’s service users have multiple and complex needs. They are people who the private sector cannot profit from and the public sector cannot reach. The third sector has become, for them, the only effective intervention, combining highly responsive services and hard-hitting campaigning.

Our very public campaigns on issues from the closure of long-stay hospitals to the shortage of services for crack users could hardly be described as timid. Turning Point receives public money to run specific services the state does not provide and has always been prepared to lobby hard on issues and to develop innovative new services for those who cannot get what they need.

We refute the claim that delivering bespoke local services on a national scale somehow morphs us into an arm of government. It’s precisely our values as a charitable, social enterprise, unencumbered by shareholder interest that makes us so responsive and engaging for those who need us. It is important to remember what we do is deliver a much needed service to the public, but that is not the same as becoming a state-run public service.

The inverse care law says that those who need the most receive the least. Let’s not make it still worse for them.”

NCH chief executive Clare Tickell responds
"The values and ethos of NCH, enable us to meet the needs of over 160,000 children, young people and their families across the UK. We act independently of the state and use our income to break the cycle of deprivation for the most vulnerable children and young people throughout the country - this is our primary motivator.

At NCH we cherish our independence. We speak out and campaign when we think government is wrong and we are not afraid to shirk from difficult issues because they may play badly to a populist agenda. For example, we oppose the extensive use of antisocial behaviour orders as well as the withholding of housing benefits as a tool to reduce antisocial behaviour and we are not afraid of telling policy-makers or ministers.

But at the same time, we have led the way in developing the intensive family support service to reduce the antisocial behaviour of families at risk of eviction. NCH is not ashamed to work in partnership with local government as well as others in pursuit of shared goals. In fact, in line with our values, we have an obligation and responsibility to do so.

Furthermore, it is the voluntary sector that often steps in and delivers services because it is better placed than other providers.

At NCH, this is not about changing the way we work or relinquishing part of our core mission. It is about building on and using our strengths: being innovative and pioneering in our approach; having the ability to effectively engage with the most hard to reach children and young people; and using our years of experience to successfully reach out to those in most need.

For NCH, service delivery is not about the source of our funding but about our ability to deliver high quality, safe and flexible services to the children and young people we aim to help.
We are specialists in supporting society’s most vulnerable children, young people and their families. Our independent charitable values have informed this work for nearly 140 years and will continue to do so."

Leonard Cheshire director general, Bryan Dutton responds
"While Civitas have not actually sent us a copy of their report, nor did they speak to Leonard Cheshire while writing the report, the coverage suggests that it fundamentally misunderstands how the funding from government to many charities is used.

Leonard Cheshire provides social care services to many disabled individuals across the country. We do not receive grants from central government to provide these services – rather our services are based on the needs of individuals within local communities, generally funded by a local authority. This means that we are providing local, personalised services tailored to individual disabled people’s assessed needs. We are in effect 180+ small, local charities.

There is no ‘mission creep’ – if it is not a core part of our purpose then we won’t do it. And we are not influenced or swayed by government agendas. Unless, of course, they are the agendas we have persuaded the government to take on.

Leonard Cheshire ensures that contracts from local authorities and primary care trusts fully cover the costs of provision.

Donated income is not diverted to subsidise the state – we use it to enhance these services to create something that is unique, personalised and of the highest possible quality. We can guarantee that all donations to us are used for charitable purposes.

Using voluntary income, we are also able to develop and provide innovative projects, such as our Ready to Start or Discover IT schemes, which provide training and support for many more disabled people. We are also able to campaign on important policy issues affecting disabled people at a national, and indeed international level.

Leonard Cheshire believes it is essential that charities maintain their independence, and crucially, maintain whatever unique identity it is that makes them a worthwhile and valuable cause. It is a gross over-simplification to suggest that the source of a certain percentage of their funding determines this value.

It is the work they do, the values they embrace and the impact they make that should determine a charity’s worth. On this basis, Leonard Cheshire is proud and confident to call itself a charity."

The Pledge Explained

2007-02-05T15:31:00.000-08:00

The Pledge is not just about one senior charity professional abusing his position , it is about the Charity Commission's and the Independent Complaints Reviewers own written admission that over 70% of charities in England and Wales dont have complaints processes and almost 80% dont think they need them.

This is appalling, if Tesco's, Sainsbury's or the Metropolitan Police acted like this their would be an uproar instead people trust charities with their money assuming they do their best by those they claim to act on behalf of.

The current system simply encourages and perpetuates abuse. Charities have no argument for being less accountable than anyone else , their finances and operations should be transparent and the sort of covering up and buck passing we have seen here by various charities, the Charity Commission and the Independent Complaints Reviewer over a really serious charge harms all charities and people wont donate to or sponsor charities if they appear to be more concerned about looking out for themselves than the people they collect money for and claim to act on behalf of.

Comic Relief

2007-02-01T09:33:00.000-08:00

A fellow MH campaigner and fine artist sent me this pic to place on the blog to illustrate his disgust with the total lack of accountability in the MH charity sector and his view of the relationship between charities, the regulatory Charity Commission and the totally useless Independent Complaints Reviewer(ICR).

I decided to apply a little self censorship as the Charity Commission and ICR have gone to such great lengths to protect themselves from looking at or investigating the ' obscene and distressing ' pornographic content a senior MH charity official and his friends have been deliberately targetting at MH service users.

Lack of Professional Accountability

2007-01-31T01:37:00.000-08:00

The Independent Complaints Reviewer - main photo shows ICR Logo - talked up the Charity Commission's handling of complaints in her recent report but kept the following out of her glowing foreword:

"One way that the Commission can help people
take their complaints about charities forward in the
right way is by encouraging charities themselves
to buy in to the concept and importance of well
structured internal complaints processes. The
Commission’s recent report, ‘Cause for Complaint’,
demonstrates that commitment to this area of
good practice is far from universal.

In fact, this showed that 70% of charities have no
complaints procedure, 79% don’t think that they
need one and, of particular concern to the ICR, a
worrying 77% of small and medium sized charities
think that it is the Commission’s job to deal with
complaints for them."

Jodi Berg Annual Report, 2006.

In other words , almost 80% of charities really dont give a shit about being professionally accountable and Ms Berg thinks this is a matter of encouraging them to buy into the concept of professional accountability. I think its more a question of the general public and corporate sponsors opting out of giving money to these charities unless they clean up their act.

Laughably, the ICR has no internal complaints process for investigating the unprofessional conduct of her own staff. Perhaps more sites like this one will help Ms Berg and her team buy into the concept that the public expects fairness and value for money not double standards.

This is fair comment.

ICR Jodi Berg Gives Green Light to Senior Charity Official who has Targetted his Charity's Beneficiaries with Porn Content

2007-01-31T00:16:00.000-08:00

The Independent Complaints Reviewer(ICR) yesterday gave the Mental Health Foundation's Senior Policy Advisor David Keay aka David Crepaz Keay a green light to continue targetting his charity's client group with drug and porn content.

The ICR reviews the Charity Commission's performance in handling and investigating Complaints the Commission receives from members of the public. In this case a member of the public made a complaint to a registered charity named Mental Health Media (MHM) about its Director , David Keay , using his charity's staff and resources to operate a clandestine and anonymous website to attack other MH professionals and service users.

Mr Keay left MHM shortly after the complaint was made to take up a position with the Mental Health Foundation, (MHF) , run by Dr Andrew McCulloch, who was chair of MHM at the time he was operating his clandestine website. Mr McCulloch refuses to confirm whether he was aware of the website or not. McCulloch was certainly aware that complaints had been made about David Keay and his clandestine online activities at the time he personally offered him a job as a Senior Policy Advisor.

In February 2006 whilst fronting an MHF partnered iniative called the National Service User Network it was discovered that David Keay was once again involved in clandestinely targetting his own client group with unsuitable material, only this time the content was, as the Charity Commission described it, ' obscene and distressing ".

It is a matter of fact that Mr Keay purchased, registered and legally owned not one but three web domains involved in targetting this content at the client group MHF worked with yet when a formal complaint was made to Together and MHF, the two registered charities behind the National Network no investigation occured.

A complaint was then made to the Charity Commission who, after months of dithering and passing the buck decided instead to investigate the complainant for sending it the pornographic material David Keay and his associates had and still are targetting at the client group he works with at the MHF.

A formal complaint was then made to the ICR as targetting pornographic images at the beneficiaries of ones registered charity isnt a charitable objective and the Charity Commission has a legal duty to protect beneficiaries of charities being targetted in this way.

The ICR's Office Manager Robin Lockyer immediately spoke with the Charity Commission off record to network excuses why the ICR , Jodi Berg , could not investigate the way the Charity Commission had buried its head in the sand to avoid investigating why a senior charity figure with the MHF was still being allowed to target his client group with pornographic images.

A number of other people supported the complaint , a situation which seemed to anger Mr Lockyer and force him to change his excuses why the ICR could not intervene.

This was the final response from the ICR's office. So its now official, registered charity status in England entitles senior charity figures like David Keay aka David Crepaz Keay to target drug content and pornography at the vunerable people they work with. Please do not donate to or corporately sponsor Mental Health Media or the Mental Health Foundation unless or until these organisations prove that they are professionally accountable and are prepared to direct their staff, funds and resources towards charitable ends rather than simply allowing their managers to target their beneficiaries with porn.

Thank you for your mail of 29 January 2007.

You will recall my email to you of 24 January in which I said that I would discuss your complaint with the ICR. I have now done that.

The remit of the ICR is to investigate failures in standards of service or maladministration by the Charity Commission. She cannot investigate substantive complaints about a charity or individuals connected with a charity, and cannot challenge decisions that the Commission has properly made in accordance with its policy and guidance.

The Commission wrote to you to agree a summary of complaint on 29 November 2006, but the Commission subsequently decided that the material you lodged in return did not support a complaint about the standard of service you received from the Commission or failure to follow its policies. The Commission has decided not investigate your complaint.

The ICR notes the following;

· The Charity Commission considers that you have lodged no information to support a complaint about its own standards of service

· The ICR is unable to investigate complaints unless and until the Charity Commission itself has done so
· The substance of your complaint appears to be about an individual connected to a charity, and it is not within the remit of the ICR to investigate this.

For these reasons the ICR is unable to investigate your complaint.

You have mentioned that you are considering taking your complaint to the Ombudsman, and of course you are entitled to ask an MP to refer the matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on your behalf. I would advise you that they too will consider if your complaint falls within their remit. I would also add that they would investigate a complaint against this office.

We do share your concerns and those of your supporters about the seriousness of the matters you have raised with the Charity Commission. Mrs. Berg feels that if you are concerned that some criminal activity has occurred the proper course of action is to take your complaint to the Police for them to investigate.

This brings our correspondence to a close. I am sorry that we cannot help further, although we will be happy to co-operate with any enquiries made by the Ombudsman’s office.

Robin Lockyer
Office Manager
Independent Complaints Reviewer
New Premier House (Second Floor)
150 Southampton Row
London
WC1B 5AL

Telephone 020 7278 6251
Mobile 07766367839
Fax: 020 7278 9675
E-mail robin.lockyer@icr.gsi.gov.uk

E-Mail to Comic Relief ref k500 User Network Project

2006-10-23T12:29:00.000-07:00

Peter Bennett -Jones
Chairman
Board of Trustees
Comic Relief

Dear Peter,

Re. inappropriate use of Comic Relief funds

I understand Comic Relief recently awarded Mental Health charities the Mental Health Foundation and Together k500 to establish a national 'Network of Networks' of Mental Health Service Users Groups and that the project managers are now asking all service groups wishing to participate to donate an additional k5.

Many MH service users are very concerned about this iniative as it is fronted by David Crepaz Keay an individual with numerous roles within the MH sphere , some declared, others not, and a history of abusing his position , staff and charitable funds for his own ends.

In 2005 Mr Crepaz Keay was asked to leave Mental Health Media , where he served as Director, after it was discovered that he had used the charity's funds and rsources to set up a clandestine website that attacked rival MH charity heads and MH service users. He was immediately re-employed as a Senior Policy Advisor with the Mental Health Foundation.

In early 2006 in connection with the National Network you have just funded Together sent out e-mails bearing Mr Crepaz Keay's e-mail address which derived from and linked to a domain targetting ordinary MH service users with porn and drug content. The domain was registered by Mr Crepaz Keay, he was hosting it on a server he paid for and as he was using the derivative e-mail from this domain as his principal e-mail address in his work with Together over the National Network it is clear Mr Crepaz Keay was aware of the content and who it was being targetted at as well as being legally responsible for it.

The Charity Commission have also officially warned other charities about dealing with Mr Crepaz Keay.

In spite of an official complaint to Together, the organisation refused to explain why the National Network literature was contaminated by Mr Crepaz Keay's clandestine antics. He is also officially viewed as the author of the ' Network of Networks' iniative although the idea of a national network was first discussed by ordinary service users who wanted to use the internet and free and/or open source applications and resources to loosely link together in a grass roots upwards rather than top down way to promote 'choice' at the individual level rather than be 'represented' by highly paid MH charity professionals they have no contact and very little in common with .

Society Guardian recently featured some blogs connected to this grass roots development here View from the Blogosphere

Would you please formally investigate these matters - further evidence can and will be supplied on request - and explain exactly how Comic' Relief's Trustees are going to ensure, as they are legally required to. that Mr Crepaz Keay and Co will not be able to misuse the money the general public freely donated and entrusted to Comic Relief , for their own ends and how you intend to audit the Network of Networks project for effectiveness as there is already an enquiry into how another k250 Mr Crepaz Keay was responsible for at Mental Health Media was spent.

Lastly, Comic Relief has awarded a grant of half a million pounds here Peter and the first thing the recipients did was ask those they wished to network and support to donate k5 for the priviledge and discuss selling DVD's of their meetings to ordinary MH service users.

I look forward to hearing from you

Please acknowledge receipt

Des Curley

Network of Networks Fraud Funded

2006-10-23T07:50:00.000-07:00

David Crepaz Keay , a Senior Policy Advisor with the Mental Health Foundation and Anne Beales of the charity Together have managed to dupe Comic Relief into providing funds for their Network of Networks concept, a top down plan for Mr Crepaz Keay , who already has numerous declared and undeclared interests within Mental Health, and co to pretend that they somehow nationally represent service users.

Mr Crepaz Keay is not accountable to any service users, he has repeatedly lied about involving people on representative bodies , i.e. the MadforArts advisory group which had one prominent service user activist threatening legal action if MadforArts and Mental Health Media continued to misrepresent him as involved with it. David was also fired as Director of Mental Health Media for misusing its staff and resources to set up a clandestine website to anonymously attack other MH professionals and service users and most recently he was involved with a website based on his name, which targetted MH service users with porn and drugs content.

Mr Crepaz Keay has been repeatedly protected by other MH charity professionals who believe that their right to lord it over service users gives him the right to be abusive and get away with it.

Shannon O Neil of Mind is a good example . She explained that David was just taking the piss out of other service users without even considering whether charities and the people who manage them are funded to do this.

Worse,O'Neil is the Mind official now dealing with Crepaz Keay and his cronies on the National Network Group.

Anne Beales of Together refused to comment on the porn and drugs Mr Crepaz Keay was targetting at Mental Health Service users from a domain the e-mail he was officially communicating with Together derived from. Mr Crepaz Keay was hosting the content, he had not declared it but when it was exposed he claimed it was his former business partners website.

Mr Crepaz Keay owned the domain, had set up the site and , hosted it on a server on an account paid for by him yet Ms Beales claimed she had seen evidence that David was not involved.

Lets see that evidence Ms Beales.

Let all the service user groups you and David claim you want to network and support see that you two are fit to work with service users at all.

Let your funders see how representative, professional and worthy you really are.

Here's the skinny on the funding from Paul Tovey . Look at the sums involved here. Half a million pounds and requests of donations of five thousand pounds each from participating user groups to set up a project that is fanciful in the extreme and purely engaged in as a money spinner.

(Draft) Minutes of Network Planning Group Meeting
Held on Tuesday 26 September 2006 at
The Mental Health Foundation Offices

Action

Present:

Liz Abraham’s [LA] Afiya Trust
Anne Beales [AB] Together

Karol Bradbury (Mind – Minute Taker)
David Crepaz-Keay [DCK] Mental Health Foundation

Rob Henderson [RH] Mental Health Matters

Bev Mills [BM] Mental Health Matters
Shannon O’Neill [SON] Mind Link
Donna Smart [DS] Borderline UK
Jan Wallcraft [JanW]

Janine Wood (Chair) [JW] Rethink

Welcome and apologies:
Everyone was welcomed to the meeting. Apologies for absence were received from Tina Coldham (TC), Simon Hayes (SH) and Jude Sellen (JS).

Minutes of last meeting and matters arising:
DCK suggested the Comic Relief note about the bid in the last minutes needed more detail. He said that Comic Relief have asked for another meeting with NPG and Tudor Trust, about evaluation and monitoring systems around any potential funding. A meeting has been arranged for Monday 23 October 2006.

The minutes of the last meeting have been sent out to all members together with the draft Terms of Reference. No responses have been received yet with regard to discrepancies or amendments.

DCK recently met with Delyth Morgan who is Chair of the National Patients Voice Initiative. It was agreed that discussions about all links with groups and individuals need to take place.

Update from all members:

JW has distributed DVDs and received positive feedback. Some people have said they would be willing to pay for them.

LA – has attended a couple of conferences – including the Labour Party conference. She has received mixed feedback about the Network.

BM apologised for not being able to attend the last three meetings due to ill health. She has received some feedback about the Network with a criticism being that it is London based.

JanW has been busy in the speaking at events in the southeast with SURGE. She is still getting asked about the Network and how to join. She attended the Mind Coming of Age conference in Leicester. She has given serious thought to UKAN’s questions.

RH/JW/DCK to attend this meeting

Action

SON said the Mind Link summer magazine has been distributed with a

message about the Network. Have had a couple of people ask to find out

more and be added to the distribution list. Mind’s Coming of Age

Conference provided a platform to highlight the future of the Network, which seemed to be well received.

DCK has had a meeting with Delyth Morgan (National Patients Voice Initiative). As part of the reorganisation following the abolition of the Patient and Public Involvement in Health a number of voluntary organisations have formed an initiative calling for a National Public voice, as yet they have not budget or formal status but the Network will maintain communication with this group. We need to start mapping out relationships we want to have. There is a lot to do and we need to be clear about what we want. Now that we have the money from Comic Relief – £500,000 over five years the responsibility is on us to make things happen. This is a unique opportunity.

RH has been very busy monitoring certain websites and responding. A lot of good effort has been put in so far and would like to see how we are going to be known and what the contact details are going to be. We must not lose contact with grass roots levels.

AB said the National Mental Health Partnership have now got information re finance for Trusts and they are looking forward to linking in with us. They have invited her to speak to the financial directors’ annual conference. She has been invited to speak at the Mental Health Today conference. She feels it is important to get our collective message across. She has also been asked to speak at the Mental Health Providers Forum AGM. AB highlighted the two responses to UKAN’s correspondence from Together’s Chief Executive. AB also emphasised the importance of working with service users at a local level and talked about the ‘next generation’ of people in the user movement.

UKAN correspondence:

JanW is the last person to have had contact with UKAN. The draft response needs to be circulated and agreed then signed off by all those who attend the NPG. The revised letter of response was not available at the meeting, owing to technical problems. This will be circulated by email for the rest of the planning group to approve.

General discussion took place with regard to some of the difficulties being experienced without having a member of UKAN at the table to have direct discussion/dialogue with.

Terms of Reference for the Network:

The Terms of Reference have been agreed as work in progress and have been emailed to the network. RH asked if enquiries had been made regarding a bank account. DS has made some initial enquiries and will be following this up.

JanW to forward letter.

TC/AB/DCK make amendments. All sign off.

DS

Action

Budget:
Letters have been written to organisations represented at the planning group asking for £5,000 each to assist financially during the development phase. Heard back from Afiya Trust to say they do not have any money.

SON asked when the money from Comic Relief could be accessed. AB said probably as soon as October 2006 but it was pointed out that this money couldn’t fund the planning groups work to date. The interim budget went up to the end of this financial year and should run alongside the development funding for the Network from Comic Relief until March 2007.

Where we go next:

Identity: AB suggested she draft a letter to go out to the general membership re what logo, name and the messages they want to give out. The Terms of Reference is to be sent out with this letter by the end of October 2006. Nominations close end of November 2006 and a decision is to be made at the December 2006 meeting.

Governance: Need to do some research into models and ideas. Report back to November meeting. Any other thoughts/ideas on this can be emailed to group members.

Recruitment: Adverts need to be sent out. Draft job descriptions and person specifications have been prepared.

Advert to be prepared and go out in January 2007. Shortlisting, interview and appoint by end February 2007 with a view to three workers being in post by April 2007.

Terms and conditions for staff: It was agreed that the planning group look at this. LA and DCK said they have some examples of good models.

Communications:

Internal: We will need to be disciplined about reporting back to this group. Action points need to be named and timescaled.

External: It was agreed that all members must be consistent with what is being said in the press release. This cannot be actioned until we hear from Tudor Trust. A media plan needs to be prepared by mid October 2006.

Group members were asked to identify if they were willing to be a media spokesperson.

Networking: AB suggested that the group needs to be more systematic with regard to networking. She will do a trawl of the network to see whom people are in contact with. JW is going to set up a database with a small space for a narrative. She needs emails from members giving contact details. JW to email members with what she needs by early October. Then we will be able to see where the gaps are.

RH suggested that the minutes of the planning group meetings be signed off officially.

Lead: AB

Group: AB/DS

DCK/SON

To check advert

Lead: RG

Group:AB/RH/

DCK/BM/SON

Lead: JW

Group: LA/JW/

AB/SON
Lead: June

Lead: DCK

Group: BM/ SON/DS/JS

DCK/SON, BM/DW/AB/DS/TC/LA/RG/JS

AB/JW

Action

Any other business:

Two more people have written with requests to join the group. This will have to wait until the governance review takes place when the group will be in a better position to respond. RH to write a letter to this effect thanking them for their interest.

DS is still awaiting contact details from Matt, Raza, David, Lisa, Dominic, Jude and Farah.

SON to chair the next meeting. RH to be a continuous support to the roving chair.

Dates of future meetings:

Meetings take place between 11:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.

2006:

Wednesday 18 October

Thursday 23 November

Tuesday 19 December

2007:

Monday 22 January

Monday 19 February

Monday 19 March

Communication regarding the Network can be sent to: June Marmolejo, Network of Networks, 82a Wick Street, Wick BN17 7JS

Rethink's Cliff Gets Top Social Entrepeneur Position Despite Prior Failure

2006-09-27T06:11:00.000-07:00

Cliff Prior leaves Rethink & goes to UnLtd

Cliff Prior has left Rethink because Paul Corry Rethinks Director of Public Affairs totally compromised him and the organisation with his shallow ' anti-stigma' media focussed take. Funds were also misused but once again we see the charity 'brotherhood' at work here as Prior was ultimately responsible for Rethink's disasterous Churchill in a Straitjacket stunt which backfired and annoyed people so much they vowed never to fund MH charities again and yet here's Cliff being offered top spot with an organisation that promotes and support social entrepeneurs.

The accounts dont seem to have been filed with the Charity Commission either and it very much looks like slippery Cliff has jumped ship to avoid the AGM.

Remarkable isnt it?

Rethink alienates the people who fund it in the full gaze of the media- Rethink's funds are down as a result - and the Brotherhood reinvent
the idiot who allowed this to happen as an inspiration to social
entrepeneurs.

Equally remarkable is that Rethink's nemesis Paul Corry is now advising
MH service users how to campaign!!! Amazing . Lets see what plans the
' brotherhood ' has for the incompetent Mr Corry the only Rethink executive without a profile on the Rethink site.

Now what was that about ' Ready Steady Plan ' Mr Corry?

Wanker!

David Crepaz Keay received the same help from the ' brotherhood' , he
abused funds and staff within Mental Health Media causing a scandal that
the charity has still not recovered from - sorry Maggie but its true -
and contrary to its own equal opportunities policy the Mental Health
Foundation , on instruction from David's old MHM boss Andrew '
Soundbite's for Cash ' McCulloch rushed in to pick up David as a Social
Policy Advisor.

In any other line of business this type of conduct would draw the
attention of the serious fraud squad but of course Messrs Prior,
McCulloch, Corry and Crepaz Keay work for charities which arent
accountable at all so they not only get away with this kind of abuse
they depend upon it to enhance their career prospects.

If Cliff Prior had any scruples at all, he'd step aside and allow
someone with a background in social entrepenuership to lead his new
charity. Watch this space for McCullochs departure next.

This is fair comment .

Copied to Charity Commission.

Back Online

2006-09-26T02:05:00.000-07:00

Sorry about that folks , this site was suspended for 4 days by the blogger team. It reminds me of the time when Steven Lowden , the Chief Executive of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvment in Health used taxpayers money to get lawyers to lean on Mike Cox's ISP to close down Mike's PPI critical site.

Some people just cant take criticism.

So just for Mr Lowden and all those making a really comfortable living off of people with MH issues, here's a clean bill of health certificate from the Blogger Team.

Have a great day.

From: Blogger Help

Date: 24-Sep-2006 03:08
Subject: Re: [#74730801] Non-spam review and verification request: http://whoaretheyreallyworkingfor.blogspot.com
Hello,

Your blog has been reviewed, verified, and cleared for regular use so that
it will no longer appear as potential spam. If you sign out of Blogger and
sign back in again, you should be able to post as normal. Thanks for your
patience, and we apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

1 in 4

2006-09-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

In recent years MH services and the MH voluntary sector have created a small army of MH and ex-MH service users who are paid to represent all other service users views. Some of these people - and some havent used services for 15 years or more - earn huge amounts of money from mental health without having any real linkage to ordinary MH service users who consequently dont get a look in.

We would like to see public money and charitable donations earmarked for MH to go straight towards providing better treatment and care for everyone with MH issues rather than straight into the pockets of these stooges.

Please find out what your money will be used for before donating to the major MH charities as ' User Involvment ' schemes are taking funding and resources away from frontline treatment and care.

The Charity Commission's Version of Cleaning Up Its Act

2006-09-16T05:39:00.000-07:00

The Charity Commissions response to the ICR report 2005-06 - which highlighted that 70% of charities did not have complaints procedures and an even greater number thought that they didnt need to.

Charity Commission Chief Executive Andrew Hind said,

"As ever, the Independent Complaints Reviewer’s observations and recommendations give us important feedback on the Commission's effectiveness. ( Read Up!) Offering a free (?), independent review of complaints is an important way for the Commission to show that we are accountable to our customers, and to the public. "We're pleased that the report recognises the hard work we've put in to further improving our customer services in the past year, including expanding both our Customer Network and our programme of seminars with faith-based charities. In a year in which we've seen the highest ever number of recorded compliments, it's also helpful to know that we should communicate early on in the complaints process what we can, and can't, look into. We are acting on this, along with all the other valuable recommendations in the report. "The number of complaints brought to the ICR continues to decrease and this year we're undertaking a major review of our customer complaints procedures to ensure they're more accessible, and provide quicker and better ways to evaluate concerns raised about our service. We hope the lessons learned this year will have an even greater impact on next year's report."

What the Charity Commission has actually done is made it more difficult for people to locate information about making complaints about charities or indeed the Commission itself on its official website including burying the contact details for the complaints department in plain text beneath automated and lenthy FAQ details.

New Guidance for ( Scottish) Charity Trustees

2006-09-16T05:28:00.000-07:00

21 August 2006

The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) , the independent registrar and regulator for 21,000 Scottish Charities has published new guidance for charity trustees, outlining their duties under the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. English and Welsh charities that operate in Scotland may have to register with OSCR and conform to its higher professional standards.

'Guidance for Charity Trustees - acting with care and diligence' is the latest in the Regulator's range of publications and is aimed at assisting charity trustees to understand what is expected of them, as individuals and collectively, under the Act.

A key feature of the new publication is a checklist, with examples of good practice to help charity trustees fulfil their duties and responsibilities.

In demonstrating the importance of understanding trustee duties, OSCR is to issue a copy to every one of Scotland's 21,274 active charities as well as providing supplies to umbrella organisations and professional bodies.

The new publication explains general duties, such as:

* Acting in the interests of the charity;
* Operating in a manner consistent with the charity's purposes;
* Acting with care and diligence; and
* Collective or corporate responsibility.

In addition, specific duties are detailed, including:

* Reporting to OSCR;
* Financial records and reporting; and
* Providing information to the public.

The document features a section on the new investment powers of trustees generally, including trustees of charitable trusts. Sources of relevant advice and support to enable charity trustees to fulfil their duties, are also listed.

OSCR will continue to add to its range of guidance during the remainder of 2006. If you would like to be added to our email list, please subscribe here.

Report on Charity Commission 's Complaints Record 2005-2006

2006-09-16T04:50:00.000-07:00

Seeking a Fair Resolution

Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Charity Commission
Annual Report 2005-2006

N.B. If you wish to view this report with all its photographs and images, please select the PDF version (531KB)

You can view the Charity Commission's response to the Report here

The Independent Complaints Reviewer's service

Who is the Independent Complaints Reviewer?

Jodi Berg is the ICR for the Charity Commission, Land Registry, Land Registry Northern Ireland, National Archives and Housing Corporation. She is also Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency. Jodi Berg is a solicitor and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. She is not a civil servant or an employee of the Commission or any other public body.

The ICR service

The Commission opted into the ICR's service in 2001. The ICR reviews complaints made by people dissatisfied with the Commission's response to their concerns. The service is managerially independent from of the Commission and is free to complainants.

Complainants can expect from us:

Courtesy and respect
Honesty and objectivity
Accessibility - a service that is open and available to all
Flexibility - procedures that are responsive to the needs of all
Use of plain language
Openness to suggestions and comments

The ICR is assisted in her work by a small team of staff. Team members are civil servants who are either permanently employed at the ICR office or seconded for a limited time from other public bodies, including those for which Jodi Berg is the ICR. The team members are:

Office Manager: Robin Lockyer

Senior Investigations Officer: David Davies

Investigations Officers: Sheila Lankertis and Kathryn Rogers

Contact the ICR

Independent Complaints Reviewer
New Premier House
150 Southampton Row
London
WC1B 5AL

t: 020 7278 6251
f: 020 7278 9675
e: enquiries@icr.gsi.gov.uk
w: icrev.demon.co.uk

Foreword

I am pleased to present my annual report as Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Charity Commission.

As in previous years, only a small number of the Commission's customers have had cause to refer a complaint to me during 2005 - 2006. This reflects positively on the Commission, which continues to provide a good service to its customers and to resolve most complaints internally. Nevertheless, the cases that I have reviewed have prompted some recommendations for improvements in the Commission's procedures and revealed some emerging issues concerning the Commission's role as a regulator and its proportionate approach to casework. I will describe these later in my report.

Having carried out an extensive review of the organisation, this year the Commission has begun to implement the findings of its Strategic Review. This has involved finding ways to put into practice the Commission's revised values and mission and has entailed a complete reorganisation of its case-working teams. The coming year will be one of consolidation, as the Commission revises its processes and demonstrates to the sector and the public at large how it has changed. It will, of course, be important for staff to be fully trained in the new procedures so that the service provided to customers does not diminish. I welcome the opportunity to see the new structure in action and the benefits derived from changes in policy and practice.

As I write this year's report, the Charities Bill continues its rather slow passage through Parliament. Once enacted, this legislation will bring many changes for the charitable sector and all Commission customers. In particular, the proposed Charities Tribunal will make a significant difference for people unhappy with Commission decisions. Once established, my office will seek to form links with the Tribunal so that dissatisfied Commission customers do not fall between the gaps.

During the year I have met with the Commission's Chief Executive, Andrew Hind, with the Board of the Commission and its Customer Service team on a number of occasions. I have found all of our meetings helpful and productive. I have also visited each of the Commission's offices and had the opportunity to learn about the Commission from the staff who deliver its day-to-day services. I am heartened by their constructive approach to independent review and I am grateful to all of the members of staff who have helped to enhance my own understanding of today's Commission.

Turning to my office, I am assisted by a dedicated team who adhere to office service principles of impartiality and confidentiality. During the reporting year, we again were awarded the British Standards Institute complaint management standard, one of few public bodies to achieve this accreditation. We have had numerous changes in personnel this year, including the departure of my Office Manager, Andrew Robertson. Andrew was with the ICR office since its inception and was instrumental in bringing our service to the high standards it enjoys today. He is succeeded by Robin Lockyer, who is already making a positive difference to our work. I thank all members of the ICR team for their valued contribution.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the Commission's Chair, Geraldine Peacock, as she departs the Commission. Together with her Board colleagues, she has presented a more open, transparent and approachable face to the sometimes difficult task of regulation. I wish her well and look forward to working with the incoming Chair, Dame Suzi Leather, in the ongoing task of service improvement.

I hope that you find my report interesting and informative.

Jodi Berg

Provision of advice and guidance

A customer complained to the Commission about a school that was a registered charity. He was concerned that the school did not make it clear that its governing document allowed for students to be exempted from religious instruction and worship and that the charity had acted in breach of trust by initially refusing his request for his son to be exempted. The Commission considered this issue and concluded that if the school were to fail to consider an exemption request, it would constitute a breach of trust. It provided advice and guidance to the school's governors, but did not take the regulatory action against the school that the customer desired.

The ICR concluded that the Commission had carried out a full evaluation and taken appropriate action, on the basis of legal advice. The ICR pointed out that the Commission has no power to act as an 'ombudsman', by adjudicating on an internal complaint within a charity. It was further explained to the complainant that it is ultimately for the Commission - not the complainant - to decide whether a governance issue is of sufficient significance for it to take the serious step of regulatory intervention.

About the ICR service

Our mission

Seeking a fair resolution.

Our aim

To be fair and impartial in the review of complaints made by individual members of the public or organisations. To achieve afair and proportionate settlement of complaints, making a positive difference for Commission customers now and in the future.

Our vision

A first rate service provided by professional staff.

What do we review?

The ICR reviews complaints that the Commission has acted maladministratively.

Maladministration is a failure to deal with matters properly or fairly and may involve:

Failure to follow proper procedure
Discourtesy
Discrimination or injustice
Excessive delay
Not answering complaints fully and promptly
Failure to apologise properly for mistakes or provide appropriate redress

The ICR cannot review complaints about Commission's decisions, although she can consider complaints about the way in which they have been made. We expect the Commission to be given a chance to resolve matters before complaints are referred to the ICR. However, because memories fade and information is only kept for a certain time period, complaints should be referred within six months of the Commission's final response to a complaint.

How would you describe the ICR's service? "Excellent".

Complainant

The Commission's internal complaints procedure

The Commission aims to provide its customers with a high standard of service. If a customer is dissatisfied with the service received, they can complain initially to the person they have been corresponding with at the Commission. If the response received has not resolved the complaint, they can make a formal complaint to a Customer Service Manager who will consider if there have been any failings in service. If a complainant is still unhappy, they can take matters a stage further by complaining to the Commission's Head of Customer Service, who will attempt to bring matters to close and - if appropriate - may offer redress to the complainant.

The Commission is required to signpost our service in its final response to a complaint. It also provides information about us on its website.

The ICR's procedure

If, after exhausting the Commission's internal complaints procedure, the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can contact the ICR, who will determine if the complaint falls within her remit.

People can refer their complaints to the ICR by telephone, post, fax, and e-mail or in person. We ensure that complainants are aware of the limits of our role and how we go about our work from their initial contact with us. We communicate with people in a clear and courteous manner that meets their needs and preferences and, on request, we can provide information and leaflets in a number of languages and formats.

The first thing that we do is consider if it will be possible to negotiate an agreement between the Commission and its customer. In cases where this appears likely, we will liaise with the complainant and the Commission to see whether there is any immediate action that can be taken which will resolve the complaint. For example, this may be by providing helpful information and advice, or by obtaining an agreement from the Commission to take certain steps, such as providing an explanation or an apology if things have gone wrong.

In cases where resolution is not possible or appropriate, we agree a summary of complaint with the customer, which sets the framework for our investigation. Once agreed, a copy of the summary is sent to the Commission, which then sends its case files to us. A detailed chronology is drawn up from the files and from the information provided by the complainant. The ICR then decides whether to issue her report straight away, or whether further enquiries (such as interviews with members of Commission staff) are required prior to issuing her report.

The ICR may make recommendations within her reports. These may be specific and aimed at resolving a complaint for the complainant, such as an apology from the Commission's Chief Executive or a consolatory payment in recognition of the anxiety and distress caused by its maladministration. The ICR can also make 'systemic' recommendations aimed at improving Commission procedures for the future.

In cases where the ICR has made recommendations, the Commission has undertaken to implement them immediately. If, however, the Commission were to decide not to do so, it must provide a written explanation for this. The Commission's Board considers all recommendations made by the ICR and the Customer Service function oversees their implementation in the relevant business area.

Our leaflet, Seeking a Fair Resolution, explains the role of the office and contains a complaint referral form. The leaflet is available from all Commission offices or direct from the ICR's office. It is also available on our website ( www.icrev.demon.co.uk) which contains further information about our work, copies of annual reports and links to other complaints handling and ombudsman services.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

In cases where the ICR's report has not resolved a complaint to the customer's satisfaction, there is a further avenue of complaint available by asking an MP to refer the matter to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In cases where a complainant is dissatisfied with the way in which we have dealt with their complaint, we have an internal complaints procedure under which their concerns are investigated and the ICR will issue a personal response.

Finding out about other complaint handling bodies

You can find out about other complaint handling bodies by visiting the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA) website (www.bioa.org.uk). The ICR subscribes to the BIOA principles of independent review and good complaint handling.

Review of the year

The past year has seen the implementation of the findings of the Commission's detailed Strategic Review, during which the Commission sought views from both inside and out to enable it to produce a new vision and mission for the organisation, and a strategy for the next few years. The objective was to, "create a Charity Commission which is a modern regulator, focussing on the needs of charities and the public. [The Commission] will be proactive, strategic and outcome-focussed; working in an open way, valuing partnerships and engaging in dialogue with all our stakeholders". The ICR welcomes this approach, which should serve to strengthen the Commission's position as a modern regulator.

It has clearly been a year of significant change for the Commission and, with old divisions now redundant and new ones emerging, its staff members have faced challenges throughout the year. Nevertheless, it has remained customer-focussed. The coming year should be an exciting one for the Commission, as the findings of the Strategic Review are finally put into practice.

During the year, the Commission resolved 107 complaints at the local stage. Of those that were considered in the formal internal complaints process, 84 were resolved at the first stage of its internal complaints procedure and 28 progressed to the second stage. It also improved its recording of compliments, with 922 received in 2005 - 2006; a significant and welcome increase form the 547 recorded in the previous year. Alongside this action, the Commission continued to administer the Decision Review process.

Recorded complaints have decreased since the previous year and, as the Commission's Customer Service function completed its third year of operation, it appears that the number of complaints is stabilising as expertise has developed within the function and advice on good practice has been shared with wider Commission staff. The ICR has found that members of Commission staff are aware of the complaints process and direct customers to it appropriately.

As always, the majority of complaints received have related to the Commission's perceived lack of responsiveness to allegations against charities. To some extent, this problem has been exacerbated by the Commission's commitment to a proportionate approach to casework, which has not satisfied determined whistleblowers that their particular concerns have been fully investigated. Some have then attempted to use the complaints procedure to persuade the Commission to take further action against a charity or its trustees. On occasion, people have then sought the help of the ICR to achieve this desired outcome.

As a consequence, the majority of complaints referred to the ICR predominantly relate to concerns about charities, rather than to the service given by the Commission. Whilst we compare the Commission's actions in any particular case against its published standards of service to establish whether these have been met, for many customers this is not the issue of concern to them. Proportionality carries little weight as an argument with people who are convinced of the utmost seriousness of the situation.

Despite this, a modern regulator has a duty to ensure that it has a measured and proportionate approach to issues of this kind. As the Commission limits the circumstances in which it will undertake a Section 8 Inquiry, it must also consider its communication strategy in respect of those people who will be disappointed by what they see as a lack of meaningful action, and others who may feel that a charity is being let off the hook. Communication is key to securing understanding and acceptance of the Commission's position. A telephone call, a helpfully worded letter, or a meeting early on may achieve this outcome more effectively than a complaint response at a later date can ever hope to do.

One way that the Commission can help people take their complaints about charities forward in the right way is by encouraging charities themselves to buy in to the concept and importance of well structured internal complaints processes. The Commission's recent report, 'Cause for Complaint', demonstrates that commitment to this area of good practice is far from universal.

In fact, this showed that 70% of charities have no complaints procedure, 79% don't think that they need one and, of particular concern to the ICR, a worrying 77% of small and medium sized charities think that it is the Commission's job to deal with complaints for them. In last year's Annual Report, the ICR repeated the call for consideration to be given to the establishment of a Charities Ombudsman, an office that could make a valuable contribution to the charitable sector generally and to individual charities' appreciation of their responsibilities to the citizens they serve.

During the year the Commission has continued to work with faith groups to identify how the Commission might develop its services to meet their needs more effectively. It has also expanded its Customer Network, which now represents a diverse range of organisations and is well used by the Commission in consultations and trials. By consulting the Customer Network, the wider charitable sector can influence Commission service and raise its awareness about issues within the sector. Consultation with the sector was an important factor in the introduction of Charity Commission Direct, which aims to provide a single, accessible and easy to use point of contact for all enquiries to the Commission.

Finally, the appointment of the Commission's new Head of Customer Service, Jeanna Pearce, brings a further opportunity for development in a customer-focussed organisation. A wide-ranging review of the Customer Service function is planned and the ICR looks forward to playing her part in the improvement of services to Commission customers.

"Thank you for an excellent summary of my complaint and dealing with it so promptly".

Complainant

"I was pleased that you kept me informed of what was going on".

Complainant

Failure to take regulatory action

A customer contacted the Commission to complain about the "hard sell' fundraising and financial practices of a religious charity. The Commission opened an Evaluation into the concerns and was satisfied that information obtained from the charity answered any issues the customer had raised. However, the customer did not consider the Commission had done enough to sort things out and, in particular, was unhappy that the Commission would not become involved in 'scriptural matters' at the charity.

Although the ICR found some evidence of delay on the Commission's part, she did not uphold the complaint. She found that the Commission had responded appropriately to the customer's concerns, in accordance with its published practice and procedure. In addition, she was satisfied that the Commission had explained from the beginning of its involvement that it had no role in considering 'scriptural matters'.

During her investigation, the ICR noted that the customer had asked Commission staff about their personal religious beliefs and proceeded to criticise the Commission's handling of his concerns on this basis. The ICR made it clear to the customer that decisions taken by Commission staff are not personal; rather they are professional judgements made on behalf of the Commission as a whole. The ICR recommended that the Commission develop guidance, to assist staff to offer a consistent approach when responding to requests for personal information from customers. As a result, the Commission amended its Employment Handbook and highlighted the change in a Message of the Day to all staff.

Poor communication and lack of judgement

Concerns were brought to the Commission's attention about a company that raised funds through collecting and recycling used clothing. As the funds collected were charitable, the company fell under the Commission's regulatory authority. An Evaluation was opened to consider the company's activities and allegations of 'underhand dealings'.

The director of the company cooperated with the Evaluation and acted on the Commission's advice. On conclusion of the Evaluation, the Commission wrote to the director alleging, amongst other serious charges, theft. It also wrote to all the charities and local authorities the company dealt with to advise them of the outcome of the Evaluation, without giving the director an opportunity to comment. The director referred his complaint to the ICR.

The ICR accepted that the 'round robin' letter was of particular concern to the complainant, who felt that it was damaging to both his own and the company's reputation. She found that the process leading to the despatch of this letter fell below the standard to be expected. She noted that there was no evidence of 'theft' on file, and that no legal advice was taken on the content of the letter before it was sent. She noted that one charity cancelled its contract with the company following receipt of the letter and the company had subsequently decided to draw back from its charitable fundraising activity.

The ICR concluded that although the Commission offered an apology and wrote to the recipients of the letter to clarify matters, this redress did not go far enough. She recommended that the Commission make a consolatory payment to the director and reconsider an earlier request to reimburse the legal costs he had incurred. To improve the service offered to future customers should a similar situation arise, the ICR also recommended that Commission staff be offered guidance on steps to take prior to issuing 'round robin' letters.

Facts and Figures

Cases completed by the Commission	2005-2006	2004-2005
Number of complaints dealt with in Division	107	171
Number of formal complaints considered at Stage One	84	103
Number of formal complaints considered at Stage Two	28	37
Number of compliments received	922	547

Cases completed by the ICR	2005-2006	2004-2005
Number of completed reviews	18	18
Number of cases considered where review not necessary	25	14
Total number of cases closed	43	32

ICR speed of service	2005-2006	2004-2005
Target in which to complete review	36 weeks	36 weeks
Average time taken to complete review	27 weeks	21 weeks

Allegations reviewed by the ICR detailed by category	2005-2006	2004-2005
Advice	4	2
Bias	3	4
Communication	12	12
Complaints Handling	10	14
Cost	2	0
Delay	9	3
Discourtesy	3	3
Discrimination	2	2
Mistakes	1	1
Other	11	3
Practice and Procedure	43	63
Responsiveness	4	3
Total number of allegations reviewed	104	110

Outcomes of ICR reviews	2005-2006	2004-2005
Number of allegations fully or partially upheld	11.5%	14%
Number of allegations not upheld	88.5%	86%

Referrals to the Parliamentary Ombudsman	2005-2006	2004-2005
Number of complainants who have referred complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman following ICR review	3	0

Internal complaints considered against the ICR	2005-2006	2004-2005
Number of complaints by Commission customers against the ICR	4	1

ICR performance

Our target is to complete all reviews within 36 weeks, once we have agreed a summary of a complaint with a customer. In 2005 - 2006 we completed 18 reviews and the average time taken to complete our reviews was 27 weeks. Although this is well within our target, it is longer than the average of 21 weeks that reviews took last year.

There were a number of cases with a particularly large amount of material to review and inevitably this lengthens the process. A thorough analysis of the issues is of great importance in bringing matters to a conclusion for both the complainant and the Commission. As a result, some reviews may take longer than others. Nevertheless, we recognise that there is room for improvement in this area and are currently reviewing our procedures to identify ways in which to speed up our service.

During the year we also considered 25 cases where a review was not necessary or appropriate. These cases ranged from customers that had come to us with a complaint too early in the process - they had not yet exhausted the Commission's internal complaints procedure - to customers that had come to us too late - they had come to us over six months after they had received the final response to their complaint from the Commission. In addition, there were a number of people who contacted us to complain about charities - as opposed to the Commission - and we signposted them appropriately. Whilst advice and assistance does not form part of our formal review work, we regard it as an important part of our service to assist people to take forward their concerns in the best way possible.

Complaints by category

It is clear from the chart below that the types of allegations considered have remained largely unchanged since last year, with the majority falling into the category of complaints about the Commission's practice and procedure.

However, of cases that were reviewed, only 11.5% were fully or partially upheld. The allegations that were upheld fell into the categories of practice and procedure, cost, advice and communication. The area where most complaints were upheld was delay in the Commission progressing matters.

It is fair to say that most complaints reviewed during the year were made by customers who had contacted the Commission to complain about a charity and were then dissatisfied that the Commission had not taken stringent regulatory action to put matters right. It is important to clarify the limits of the Commission's role early on in its correspondence with complainants, so that expectations are not unduly raised. The Commission's role in providing advice and guidance to charities is changing and we understand that the Commission's leaflet, Complaints about Charities, is currently under review. The ICR would welcome a clear statement for customers, which explains the different action that may be taken and puts the likelihood of a Section 8 Inquiry into context.

The ICR office is currently revising its guidance too, as many complainants contact us in the hope that we will be able to force the Commission to take action against a charity. The ICR does not have this authority and we look to make this clear to complainants when they initially contact us.

Customer comment and internal complaints

When a case is closed, we ask complainants to complete a quality questionnaire on the ICR service. Of those that were returned, it was clear that complainants were satisfied with our published guidance and understood that the ICR is independent of the Commission. Although some respondents were unhappy with the conclusions we had reached, we are pleased that most were satisfied with the service they had received from the office.

If a customer is dissatisfied with the service we have provided - rather than the ICR's findings - we will consider their comments as an internal complaint against the office. During the year, we received 4 complaints from Commission customers, which were mainly concerned with delay. One complainant said:

"...quite frankly we are very disappointed in the length of time that our particular case has taken".

None of the cases where internal complaints were received had exceeded our target of completing a review in 36 weeks. Although staff had kept complainants informed of the progress of the case and apologised for any delays, it was clear that some complainants had believed that their review would be completed much quicker than this. As a result, we have amended our practice to clearly inform complainants at an early stage how long it may take to fully review their case. By being open about the timeframe that we work within, we hope to improve our management of complainants' expectations.

A small number of Commission staff was also asked for their views on the ICR service. All respondents knew about our office, but there were some areas identified where we could improve our communication with staff in the future. For example, whilst most staff recognised that the ICR makes regular visits to the Commission's offices, a number of respondents suggested that attending a talk by the ICR's staff in which her role was explained in more detail would be helpful and enable them to be more confident in advising Commission customers about the ICR service.

We value all feedback from customers and are currently undergoing a comprehensive review of how our service can be improved.

Referrals to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

During the year, 3 complainants requested a review by the Ombudsman following the final report from the ICR. Two of the complaints are still under investigation by the Ombudsman. In the case where the Ombudsman has issued its response, it found no evidence of maladministration on the part of the ICR and did not uphold the complaint.

Cost of the ICR to the Commission	2005-2006	2004-2005
Total contribution to ICR office from Commission, including rent, fees, staff and other costs	£73,960	£74,760

Conduct of Inquiry

The Commission conducted a Section 8 Inquiry into four companies, which were raising funds for charities. The Inquiry was instituted to look into concerns that the fundraising methods used did not comply with the requirements of the Charities Act 1992; that the level of charitable expenditure was low in relation to the total funds raised; and that the director of the companies inappropriately received remuneration. The director did not accept that the Commission had any jurisdiction over the affairs of a private company and took the matter to judicial review. However, the Court ruling supported the Commission's actions and findings. The director then raised several complaints with the ICR about the handling of the Commission's Inquiry and the preparation and content of its report on the matter.

The ICR found that on the whole, the Commission had acted appropriately throughout the Inquiry and followed its practices and procedures. Although the Commission was criticised for the delay in publishing its Inquiry report, the ICR recognised that it had apologised for this and did not feel that further redress was necessary. It was noted however that the complainant had been given incorrect advice concerning the procedure to fast track his complaint to the ICR and recommended that the Commission take steps to inform staff about this procedure and the circumstances in which it can be used. The Commission has now implemented this recommendation.

The complainant was dissatisfied with the ICR's response and so took the rare step of asking an MP to refer a complaint about both the Commission and the ICR service to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The Ombudsman's office did not find cause to differ from the ICR's conclusions. In relation to the service received from the ICR, the Ombudsman found, "no evidence that ICR have acted maladministratively".

ICR Recommendations

The ICR can make a number of types of recommendations. For example, she can recommend an apology, an explanation, specific action, a consolatory payment, or make recommendations about the Commission's systems and procedures. Even where a complaint is not upheld, the ICR may find areas for improvement. During the year, the ICR made a number of systemic recommendations for the Commission to enhance its services for future customers:

The Commission should actively consider all requests from its customers to meet with the Commission. If a meeting is deemed to be unnecessary, the Commission should give reasons for this decision to the customer.
The Commission should consider developing guidance for staff on responding to requests by customers for personal information, for instance, about their religion.
A clear audit trail should be kept on the Commission's files to ensure that an appropriate decision making process is evident.
To avoid any suggestion of 'back door' influence, the Commission should make publicly available its policy on approaches made directly to Commissioners and senior staff.
The Commission should consider whether any new guidance is required to clarify the Commission's role in relation to excepted charities.
The Commission should take steps to make staff aware of the procedure for 'fast tracking' complaints to the ICR.
The Commission should consider setting time targets for publishing reports following completion of Section 8 inquiries.
The Commission should give consideration to providing appropriate staff guidance on the issuing of 'round-robin' style letters, to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to their content and the potential effect on individuals or businesses.
The Commission should review current procedures to ensure that there is a clear separation between the consideration of requests to waiver trusteeship disqualification and any complaint investigation associated with the same request.
The Commission should not act outside its complaints policy and procedure.

The Commission accepted all of these recommendations and keeps the ICR updated on progress towards their implementation.

About the Charity Commission

The Charity Commission is the independent regulator for charitable activity in England and Wales. It promotes the public's trust and confidence in charities by:

Enabling charities to maximise their impact
Ensuring compliance with legal obligations
Encouraging innovation and effectiveness
Championing the work of the sector

The Commission employs approximately 520 staff in London, Taunton, Liverpool and Newport.

Charities range from small groups meeting local needs, to large national and international professional bodies. An essential requirement of charities is that they operate for the public benefit and independently of government or commercial interests. At the end of March 2006, there were 167,202 'main' charities on the Register.

Independent Complaints Reviewer
New Premier House
150 Southampton Row
London
WC1B 5AL

t: 020 7278 6251
f: 020 7278 9675
e: enquiries@icr.gsi.gov.uk
w: icrev.demon.co.uk

TOP

Last updated: 21 Aug 2006

The Trustee's Role

2006-09-15T07:31:00.000-07:00

"Inside the Voluntary Sector"
with the Community Care magazine
25-31 August 1994

The Trustee's role

I am a trustee of a mental health charity and, with my fellow trustees, by law I am ultimately and totally responsible for every aspect of a charity which employs about 400 staff and has a turnover of more than £9M. As trustees, we re financially liable to the maximum of our personal assets.

So, in theory, we could lose everything, including our homes.In practice, we take no responsibility.

However disastrous the consequences of a decision, the trustees can claim that it was made in good faith and that 'proper advice' was taken - for example, from consultants, solicitors, the Charity Commission or the National Council for Voluntary Organisations - and we can balance our books by raising mortgages, selling assets, or making staff redundant.We can even close the charity down.

Trustees are also protected, individually and collectively, by the 'democratic' majority vote. Policy decisions are ostensibly made in council of management meetings, and, in theory, every trustee is supposed to take fully informed decisions. In reality, trustees do not need to know the first thing about their charity, nor have any knowledge of the role of the voluntary sector, and can with impunity accept without question a 'here's one we made earlier' policy recommendation from a sub- committee, sub-group or staff member.A majority vote from those trustees present at the council of management meeting is all that is required; trustees who are absent, or those who disagree, can do nothing about a decision accepted by the majority, even though the out-voted minority is as responsible, in law, as its colleagues in the majority.

I became a trustee simply by being proposed and seconded by two other members of the organisation; the only qualification necessary was that I must be the relative of a mentally ill person.I received virtually no trustee training, there has been no performance evaluation, and I could have resigned at any time. At the end of this year I will have completed my four-year term and somebody will replace me.

I will not take any responsibility for the consequences of decisions made during my trusteeship, although, in law, I am supposed to.This lack of accountability in the management of charities, is, in my view, the fault of the Charity Commission. The commission provides clear rules on trustees' responsibilities but leaves it to the collective management of a charity to ensure that trustees understand and accept their responsibilities. The voluntary sector needs better regulation.

By Rosemary Moore

(Appreared in the 8-page Supplement - Inside the Voluntary Sector. Community
Care 25-31 August 1994)

Open E-mail to Major MH Charity Directors

2006-09-14T04:24:00.000-07:00

Dear Mental Health Charity Directors,

I am writing to draw your attention to the launch of a new blog at http://whoaretheyreallyworkingfor.blogspot.com established to openly question the way almost the entire MH charity sector, particularly the lazy and imperious London based element, now appears to function to serve and perpetuate itself.

The sector is also rife with corruption and abuse.

In the last 18 months alone we have seen one director , who even the Charity Commission advised people to distance themselves from, forced to leave one charity for misusing and abusing its staff, resources and clients being immediately employed at senior level by another MH charity run by his friend, a fellow Director. He was later discovered to be involved in targetting MH service users with pornography. There was an illegal drugs aspect too.

The MH charity sectors response? Directors and Trustees straining their necks to look the other way.

Is the face of the MH charity sector you all really want the public to see?

Making complaints about this type of thing doesnt help either , the MH charities in question made no genuine attempts to investigate indeed as Jodi Berg the Independent Complaints Reviewer for the Charity Commission has noted in her latest report ,
"70% of charities have no complaints procedure, 79% don't think that they need one and... 77% of small and medium sized charities think that it is the Commission's job to deal with complaints for them".

What Ms Berg is actually saying is that many charities have utter contempt for the very people they claim to serve and have no interest in being accountable.

And of course, none of you are.

We have also seen hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on duplicated and lazy ' anti-stigma ' campaigns ' that were never properly audited for effectiveness .

Another prominent London based MH charity wasted tens of thousands of pounds arguing with the general public about the backfiring of a senseless publicity stunt which never deserved to be commissioned in the first place. The charity antagonised people and got itself evicted from a shopping centre.

This charity now lists this public relations disaster as a success.

We have also witnessed totally boundaryless behaviour between MH charities and the Government quango NIMHE, boundaryless behaviour that has called into question the independence of one particular charity which now appears to be lobbying and advocating for various Government Departments.

Most recently, we have also seen the kept Government policy driven academics of the same charity cut £3 payments to workers with learning difficulties to 'modernise' work services while they received massive salaries for psuedo intellectualising this mean spirited approach.

Let me repeat that:

MH charity sector academics on massive salaries decided that people with learning difficulties should work for nothing.

What on earth is charitable about that?

Only one MH charity, the national charity 'Mind' showed the slightest interest in commenting on this clear injustice however that interest, filtered through Mind's own ambitious plans to expand its role as a service provider, never quite materialised into the appropriate advocacy response most people would have expected from this national household name charity.

Indeed, a brief glance at the websites of your organisations is telling.

The Mental Health Foundation - preoccupied with organising exotic sponsored cycling holidays in South America to fund the increasingly refined lifestyles of its 'cut and paste' policy advisors and PR team.

Rethink - imploring people to play the Monday Lottery to help keep its coffers full and scrape back the money it wasted on its disasterous and counter productive ' Churchill in a Straitjacket ' campaign. .

Mental Health Media - selling service users products and services to help explain their rights.

Together - abstractly talking up concern for the 'happiness' of service users but doing nothing to combat injustice and abuse when its staff and projects are implicated.

The Richmond Fellowship - too busy trying to secure deals with NHS Trusts to waste much time worrying about impoverishing and discriminating against ordinary services users who get in their way.

Its time ordinary mental health service users sent out a loud and clear message to all the directors of all the major MH charities to let you know that we are keeping an eye on you and that we want funders and the general public to seriously think about what MH charities actually do for ordinary people with mental health problems before donating money to your organisations.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Des Curley

Sent to the following people

Andrew McCulloch
Director of The Mental Health Foundation

Jane Drabble
Chair of Mental Health Media

Paul Farmer
Director of Mind

Cliff Prior
Director of Rethink

Gil Hitchon
Together

Angela Greatley
The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health

Making a Start.

2006-09-11T11:36:00.000-07:00

I have created the ' Who Are They Really Working For ?' blog so that everyone concerned about the networked corruption within and the incompetence and falsity of the MH charity sector can have somewhere where we can organisize sending out a clear wake up call to MH charities that we will drive a wedge between their funders and them if they do not democratise and clean their acts up.

Mental Health Media, the Mental Health Foundation, Rethink , the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health and Together are perhaps the worst offenders at the moment but all the MH charities should be aware that service users are now doing more than just asking themselves ' Who Are The Mental Health Charities Really Working For? and many of us now wish to openly explore this issue to find out.

I'm hoping we can create some resources and tools to do this on this blog and that we can also profile all the major MH charities, track and monitor their finances , promises and actions and ideally create some means of looking at the 'funding to practical help provided to ordinary service users' ratio.

I cant do this alone - although that wont stop me trying if I have to - so I really would like some input and ideas from you guys. I will try to create a structured framework on the blog to work around , so just bear with me and check back often or, if you want to get involved get commenting or become a team blogger for 'Who Are They Really Working For?

Lastly, no apologies for this blog being launched as something of a ' work in progress ' as it takes time and effort to gather info on the way the major MH charities are set up , who they are funded by , how much they get and what they are actually doing with the money.

Help me help you because together we can and should make the MH charities more accountable.

Who Are They Really Working For?

One Year on, the Unacceptable Professionally Unaccountable Face Of Registered Charities

Is the Funding Tail Wagging the Dog?

The Pledge Explained

Comic Relief

Lack of Professional Accountability

ICR Jodi Berg Gives Green Light to Senior Charity Official who has Targetted his Charity's Beneficiaries with Porn Content

E-Mail to Comic Relief ref k500 User Network Project

Network of Networks Fraud Funded

Rethink's Cliff Gets Top Social Entrepeneur Position Despite Prior Failure

Back Online

1 in 4

The Charity Commission's Version of Cleaning Up Its Act

New Guidance for ( Scottish) Charity Trustees

Report on Charity Commission 's Complaints Record 2005-2006

Seeking a Fair Resolution

Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Charity CommissionAnnual Report 2005-2006

The Independent Complaints Reviewer's service

Who is the Independent Complaints Reviewer?

The ICR service

Contents

Foreword

Provision of advice and guidance

About the ICR service

Our mission

Our aim

Our vision

What do we review?

How would you describe the ICR's service? "Excellent".

The Commission's internal complaints procedure

The ICR's procedure

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Finding out about other complaint handling bodies

Review of the year

"Thank you for an excellent summary of my complaint and dealing with it so promptly".

"I was pleased that you kept me informed of what was going on".

Failure to take regulatory action

Poor communication and lack of judgement

Facts and Figures

ICR performance

Complaints by category

Customer comment and internal complaints

Referrals to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Conduct of Inquiry

ICR Recommendations

About the Charity Commission

The Trustee's Role

Open E-mail to Major MH Charity Directors

Making a Start.

Independent Complaints Reviewer to the Charity Commission
Annual Report 2005-2006